Case 2

Greenwich

Summer 1956

Investigator: Staff

At least one UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at
two USAF-RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings
of round, white rapidly moving objects which changed directions
abruptly. Interception by RAF fighter aircraft was attempted; one
aircraft was vectored to the UFO by GCA radar and the pilot reported
airborne radar contact and radar gunlock., The UFO appeared to circle
around behind the aircraft and followed it in spite of the pilot's
evasive maneuvers. Contact was broken when the aircraft returned to
base, low on fuel. The preponderance of evidence indicates the
possibility of a genuine UFO in this case. The weather was generally
clear with good visibility.
Background:

The existence of this very interesting radar-visual case was first
brought to the attention of the project staff in winter 1968 by the
receipt of an unsolicited letter from one of the principal witnesses,
a retired USAF non-commissioned officer who was the Watch Supervisor
at the GCA station on the night in question. This letter is rather
well written, it forms the most coherent account of this UFO case, it
is reproduced below in its entirety.

Reference your UFO Study: you probably already have this item in
your file, but, in case you don't, I will briefly outline it and you
can contact me for full details if you want them.

[[372]]

I retired (20 years service)...from the USAF. I have placed my name,
rank, and serial number at the top of the page if you want to check
on my authenticity. I was an Air Traffic Controller throughout my
service career and utilized radar the last 16 years in the control of
Air Traffic. I won't bother listing the types and locations, although
I could supply all this if needed.

In 1956,...(I can't remember the exact date or month), I was on duty
as Watch Supervisor at... [GCA A] in the Radar Air Traffic Control
Center. It was the 5:00 p.m. to midnight shift. I had either four or
five other controllers on my shift. I was sitting at the Supervisor's
Coordinating desk and received a call on the direct line (actually
I'm not sure which line it was). Anyway, it was... [GCA B] calling
and the radar operator asked me if we had any targets on our scopes
traveling at 4,000 mph. They said they had watched a target on their
scopes proceed from a point 30 or 40 miles east...to a point 40 miles
west of...[GCA B]. The target passed directly over... [GCA B] RAF
Station (also an USAF Station). He said the tower reported seeing it
go by and it just appeared to be a blurry light. A C-47 flying over
the base at 5,000 feet altitude also reported seeing it as a blurred
light that passed under his aircraft. No report as to actual distance
below the aircraft. I immediately had all controllers start scanning
the radar scopes. I had each scope set on a different range-from 10
miles to 200 miles radius of... [GCA A]. At this time I did not
contact anyone by telephone is I was rather skeptical of this report.
We were using

[[373]]

full MTI on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns
and stationary targets. There was very little or no traffic or
targets on the scopes, as I recall. However one controller noticed a
stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This
was unusual as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless
it was moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could
detect no movement at all. We watched this target on all the
different scopes for several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at ...
[A] to see if they had this target on their scopes also. They
confirmed the target was on their scope in the same geographical
location. As we watched, the stationary target started moving at a
speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north, northeast direction until it
reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of ... [A]. There was
no slow start or build-up to this speed--it was constant from the
second it started to move until it stopped.

I called and reported all the facts to this point, including... [B]
GCA's initial report, to the ...Command Post... ...I also hooked in
my local AFB Commanding Officer and my Unit (AFCS Communications
Squadron) Commander on my switchboard. And there could have been
others hooked in also that I was not aware of. I repeated all the
facts known to this point and continued to give a detailed report on
the target's movements and location. The target made several changes
in location,

[[374]]

always in a straight line, always at about 600 mph and always from a
standing or stationary point to his next stop at constant speed--no
build-up in speed at all--these changes in location varied from 8
miles to 20 miles in length--no set pattern at any time. Time spent
stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes to 5 or
6 minutes (possibly even longer as I was busy answering
questions--listening to theories, guesses, etc. that the conference
line people were saying). This continued for some time. After I
imagine about 30 to 45 minutes, it was decided to scramble two RAF
interceptors to investigate. This was done I believe by Air Force
calling the RAF and, after hearing what the score was, they scrambled
one aircraft. (The second got off after as I will mention later.)

The interceptor aircraft took off from an RAF Station...and
approached... [A] from the southwest. Radio and radar contact was
established with the RAF intercept aircraft at a point about 30 to
35 miles southwest...[and] inbound to...[A]. On initial contact we
gave the interceptor pilot all the background information on the
UFO, his (the interceptor's) present distance and bearing from...
[A], the UFO's (which was stationary at the time) distance and
bearing from... [A]. We explained we did not know the altitude of the
UFO but we could assume his altitude was above 15,000 feet and below
20,000 feet, due to the operational

[[375]]

characteristics of the radar (CPS-5 type radar, I believe). Also we
mentioned the report from the C-47 over . . . [B] that relayed the
story about the light which passed below him. His altitude was 5,000
feet.

We immediately issued headings to the interceptor to guide him to
the UFO. The UFO remained stationary throughout. This vectoring of
the intercept aircraft continued. We continually gave the intercept
aircraft his heading to the UFO and his distance from the UFO at
approximately 1 to 2 mile intervals. Shortly after we told the
intercept aircraft he was one-half mile from the UFO and it was
twelve-o'clock from his position, he said, "Roger, ...I've got my
guns locked on him." Then he paused and said, "Where did he go? Do
you still have him?" We replied, "Roger, it appeared he got behind
you and he's still there." [There were now two targets; one behind
the other, same speed, very close, but two separate distinct
targets.]

The first movement by the UFO was so swift (circling behind the
interceptor); I missed it entirely, but it was seen by the other
controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed
by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told us
he would try to shake the UFO and would try it again. He tried
everything--he climbed, dived, circled, etc. but the UFO acted like
it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close,
but we always had two distinct targets. [Note: Target resolution on
our radar at the range they were from the antenna (about 10 to 30
miles, all in the southerly sectors from... [A])

[[376]]

would be between 200 and 600 feet probably. Closer than that we would
have got one target from both aircraft and UFO. Most specifications
say 500 feet is the minimum, but I believe it varies and 200 to 600
feet is closer to the truth and, in addition, the tuning of the
equipment, atmospheric conditions, etc., also help determine this
figure.]

The interceptor pilot continued to try and shake the UFO for about
ten minutes (approximate -- it seemed longer both to him and us). He
continued to comment occasionally and we could tell from the tonal
quality he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared.

He finally said, "I'm returning to Station, .......[A]. Let me know
if he follows me. I'm getting low on petrol." The target (UFO)
followed him only a short distance, as he headed south southwest, and
the UFO stopped and remained stationary. We advised the interceptor
that the UFO target had stopped following and was now stationary
about 10 miles south of...[A] He rogered this message and almost
immediately the second interceptor called us on the same frequency.
We replied and told him we would advise him when we had a radar
target, so we could establish radar contact with his aircraft. (He
was not on radar at this time, probably had just taken off and was
too low for us to pick him up, or too far away--we had most of the
scopes on short range, so we could watch the UFO closely on the
smaller range.) The number two interceptor called the number one
interceptor by name (Tom, Frank--whatever his name was) and asked
him, "Did you see anything?" Number one replied,

[[377]]

"I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was." Number
two said, "What happened?" Number one said, "He (or it) got behind me
and I did everything I could to get behind him and I couldn't. It's
the damnedest thing I've ever seen." Number one also made a remark at
this time to number two, that he had his radar locked on whatever it
was for just a few seconds so there was something there that was
solid. Number one then switched frequencies to his home base
frequency. We gave number two the location of the UFO and advised him
that we still didn't have him on radar, but probably would have
shortly. He delayed answering for some seconds and then finally said,
. . . [A] _________ (Identification aircraft call sign)--can't
remember what call sign these aircraft were using. Returning home, my
engine is malfunctioning." He then left our frequency.

Throughout this we kept all the agencies, ... advised on every
aspect, every word that was said, everything.

We then inquired what action they wanted to take. They had no more
suggestions and finally they told us to just keep watching the target
and let them know if anything else happened. The target made a couple
more short moves, then left our radar coverage in a northerly
direction -- speed still about 600 mph. We lost target outbound to
the north at about 50 to 60 miles, which is normal if aircraft or
target is at an altitude below 5,000 feet (because of the radiation
lobe of that type radar). We notified . . . Air Division Command Post
and they said they'd tell everybody for us.

[[378]]

I made out a written report on all this, in detail for the officers
in charge of my facility, and was told that unless I was contacted
later for further information, he would take care of it. I don't know
if a CERVIS report was submitted on this or not--I heard no more
about it.

All speeds in this report were calculated speeds based on time and
distance covered on radar. This speed was calculated many times that
evening and although this happened quite awhile ago, the basic
elements are correct.

Fig. 1 shows a map of the contact as drawn by the witness.

Investigation:

Since this case was discovered so late in the project, investigation
was limited to a follow-up request for additional information from
Project Blue Book, and analysis of the available details of the case
by investigators familiar with radar and optical propagation
anomalies.

Copies of the Project Blue Book files on the case were received in
late August of 1968. A considerable amount of this material is
reproduced below. One of the interesting aspects of this case is the
remarkable accuracy of the account of the witness as given in the
letter reproduced above, which was apparently written from memory 12
yr. after the incident. There are a number of minor discrepancies,
mostly a matter of figures (the C-47 at 5,000 ft. was evidently
actually at 4,000 ft.), and he seems to have confused the identity of
location C with B; however, all of the major details of his account
seem to be well confirmed by the Blue Book account.

There were ancillary sightings at . . . [C] besides those
which instigated the UFO search by the . . . [A] GCA Unit but
as subsequent airborne intercept attempts yielded neither radar nor
visual contact, these accounts are not detailed below.

[[379]]

Figure 1: USAF/RAF Radar Sighting

Click on thumbnail to see full-size image.

[[380]]

At 22557, ...[C] GCA sighted object thirty miles east of station
traveling westerly at 2000-4000 mph. Object disappeared on scope two
miles east of station and immediately appeared on scope three miles
west of station where it disappeared thirty miles west of station on
scope. Tower personnel at .... [C] reported to GCA a bright light
passed over the field east to west at terrific speed and at about
4000 feet alt. At same time pilot in aircraft at 4000 feet alt.
over.... [C] reported a bright light streaked under his aircraft
traveling east to west at terrific speed. At this time.... [C] GCA
checked with RAF station.... [A] GCA to determine if unusual
sightings were occurring ....[A] GCA alerted [the] AAA stationed at
....[A] and ....[B] GCA to watch for unusual targets. Following info
is the observations made by this station radar, tower and ground
personnel placed in format required by AFR 2000-2: 1. Description of
object(s): (A) Round white lights (B) One observer from ground stated
on first observation object was about size of golf ball. As object
continued in flight it became a "pin point." (C) Color was white. (D)
Two from ground observation undetermined number of blips appearing
and disappearing on radar scopes. (E) No formation as far as radar
sightings concerned. Ground observers stated one white light joined
up with another and both disappeared in formation together. (F) No
features or details other then the white light. (C) Objects as seen
by ground observers and GCA radar have feature of

[[381]]

traveling at terrific speeds and then stopping and changing course
immediately. 2. Description of course of objects: (A) Ground
observers looked at sky and saw the object(s). RAF Station .... [Al
GCA was alerted by .... [C] GCA to be on lookout for unusual targets.
(B) Ground observers estimated objects were 20-2500 feet alt and were
on a SW heading. Object stopped and immediately assumed an easterly
heading. RAF Station .... [A] GCA and Air Traffic Control Center
reports radar tracking from 6 miles west to about twenty miles SW
where target stopped and assumed a stationary position for five
minutes. Target then assumed a heading north westerly into the
Station and stopped two miles NW of Station. ....[Al GCA reports
three to four additional targets were doing the same. Radars reported
these facts to occur at later hours than the ground observers. (C)
Ground observers report no change in alt and objects disappeared on
easterly heading. Radar sets stated no definite disappearance factors
other than targets disappeared from scopes at approx 0330 GMT Aug 14.
(D) Flight path was straight but jerky with object stopping instantly
and then continuing. Maneuvers were of same pattern except one object
was observed to "lock on" to fighter scrambled by RAF and followed
all maneuvers of the jet fighter aircraft. In addition, ....[A] Radar
Air Traffic Control Center observed object 17 miles east of Station
making sharp rectangular course of flight. This maneuver was not
conducted by circular path but on right

[[382]]

angles at speeds of 600-800 mph. Object would stop and start with
amazing rapidity. (B) Objects simply disappeared. (F) Objects were
observed intermittently by RAF Station....[A] radars from 140310 to
140330. 3. Manner of observation: (A) Ground-visual, air-electronic
and ground-electronic. Ground-electronic equipment was TS-ID, CPS 5,
and CPN4 radars. Air-electronic was A-l airborne radar equipment in
....jet aircraft. Type of aircraft, Venom, operating out of RAF
Station .... . 4. Time and date of sighting: (A) Summer 140010Z
through 140330Z. (B) Night (sky clear and nin/th of
clouds--moonlight). 5. Location of observers RAF Station .... [A]
52o24'N 0o33'E. 6. Weather and winds-aloft conditions at time and
place of sightings: (A) Clear sky until 0300Z shortly thereafter
scattered clouds at 3500 ft. (B) From midnight until 0600Z surface
wind was 230 deg at 15 knots; 6000 ft 290 deg at 24 knots; 1000 ft
290 deg at 35 knots; 16,000 ft 290 deg at 45 knots; 20,000 ft 290 deg
at 53 knots; 30,000 ft 290 deg at 62 knots; 50,000 ft 290 deg at 75
knots. (C) Ceiling unlimited. (D) Visibility from OOOlZ to 04000Z was
10 nautical miles. (F) 1/10 of sky covered at 0300Z. 8. Ground
observers report unusual amount of shooting stars in sky. Further
state the objects seen were definitely not shooting stars as there
were no trails behind as are usual with such sightings. 9.
Interception was undertaken by one British jet fighter on alert
by.... [A] sector control. Aircraft is believed to have been a Venom.
The aircraft flew over RAF Station

[[383]]

....[A] and was vectored toward a target on radar 6 miles east of the
field. Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would
investigate. At thirteen miles west he reported loss of target and
white light. ....[All RATCC vectored him to a target 10 miles east
of .. ..[A]and pilot advised target was on radar and he was "locking
on." Pilot reported he had lost target on his radar. ....[A] RATCC
reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target
began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. RATCC requested pilot
acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to
circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to
"shake" the target off his tail and requested assistance. One
additional Venom was scrambled from the RAF Station. Original pilot
stated; "clearest target I have ever seen on radar." Target
disappeared and second aircraft did not establish contact. First
aircraft returned to home Station due to being low on fuel. Second
Venom was vectored to other radar targets but was unable to make
contact. Shortly afterwards, second fighter returned to home Station
due to malfunctions. No further interception activities were
undertaken. All targets disappeared from scopes at approximately
0330Z. 10. Other aircraft in the area were properly identified by
radar and flight logs as being friendly. All personnel interviewed
and logs of RATCC lend reality to the existence of some unexplainable
flying phenomena near this air field on this occasion. Not an Air
Base; however, the controllers are

[[384]]

experienced and technical skills were used in attempts to determine
just what the objects were. When the target would stop on the scope.
The MTI was used. However, the target would still appear on the
scope. All ground observers and reports from observers at ....[C]
agree on color. Maneuvers and shape of object. My analysis of the
sightings is that they were real and not figments of the imagination.
The fact that three radar sets picked up the targets simultaneously
is certainly conclusive that a target or object was in the air. The
maneuvers of the object were extraordinary; however, the fact that
radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid
acceleration and abrupt stops certainly lend credence to the
report. It is not believed these sightings were of any meteorological
or astronomical origin.

The material on the .... [C] sightings given at the beginning of the
preceding account is typical; three other radar targets tracked by
that station behaved in a similar manner and intercept attempts made
from 2130 to 2215 GMT by an American T-33 jet aircraft were
fruitless.

An analysis of this case from the viewpoint of possible anomalous
propagation was made and appears in Chapter 7.

Conclusions:

In view of the multiple radar sightings involved in this case, any
conventional explanation for the occurrences reported would seem to
require some sort of radar anomalous propagation. As pointed out in
Chapter 7, the evidence for anomalous propagation in this case is
rather uncertain. The temporary disappearance of the target as it
appeared to overfly the ....[C] GCA is quite suggestive of anomalous
propagation. The generally clear weather was conducive

[[385]]

to the formation of the atmospheric stratification that causes
anomalous propagation, although it by no means follows that such
formation would have actually occurred. In this connection, the
apparent near-coincidence between the appearance of broken clouds
(0330 GMT) and the disappearance of the radar targets (0330 GMT)
could be significant.

On the other side must be balanced the generally continuous and
consistent movements of the radar tracks reported by . . .[A], which
are not at all typical of radar false targets caused by anomalous
propagation. In addition, some of the maneuvers reported in the radar
controller's letter to have been executed by the UFO are extremely
unlikely to be duplicated by a false target, in particular stopping
and assuming a new path after following the intercepting aircraft for
some time. The comments of the Air Force officer who prepared the UFO
message reproduced earlier are also significant.

In an early Air Force investigation it was suggested that the visual
sightings might have been caused by the Perseid meteors. However, as
Air Force Consultant Dr. Hynek pointed out:

It seems highly unlikely, for instance, that the Perseid meteors
could have been the cause of the sightings, especially in view of the
statement of observers that shooting stars were exceptionally
numerous that evening, thus implying that they were able to
distinguish the two phenomena. Further, if any credence can be given
to the maneuvers of the objects as sighted visually and by radar, the
meteor hypothesis must be ruled out.

Dr. Hynek also remarked:

The statement that radars reported these facts to occur at later
hours than the ground observers' needs clarification inasmuch as it

[[386]]

contradicts other portions of the report which
indicate that at least at certain times visual
and radar sightings were simultaneous.

In retrospect it appears that what the statement in question may have
been meant to imply was that the radars continued to report target(s)
after visual contact had been lost; the statement does not
necessarily imply that no simultaneous radar-visual sightings
occurred.

In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations
certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in
this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was
involved appears to be fairly high.